Title, director and release year? Title: Coal Country Director: Mari-Lynn Evans, Phylis Geller Release Year: 2009
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Coal Country is about a look at coal and the problems and stakeholders involved in the production of coal. Coal currently powers half of the electricity in the US. It’s a resource that is cheap and abundant, and has thus become our main source of energy. There are two ways to mine the coal, underground or surface. In Appalachia, they mine 2 million lbs of coal a year, 1 million is underground coal and 1 million is surface coal. Surface coal is much easier to mine, but to get to the coal, there is immense environmental devastation. Mountain top removal is a common practice involved with surface coal, and it is done by basically blasting the tops of mountain. Mountain top removal contaminates the water, and during reclamation, the trees and organisms that once resided there before mountain top removal are no longer there.
It’s difficult to get rid of the coal industry because the U.S. relies so heavily on it for energy. Additionally, the coal miners are afraid that without coal, they will lose their jobs and won’t be able to feed their families. Coal mining pays relatively well with the average worker making roughly $50,000 per year. In Appalachia, if the citizens aren’t mining coal, the only alternative they see is flipping burgers. However, coal has extremely negative effects on the people who live there. Residents endure health problems, coal dust and grime everywhere, and land depreciation. The water in these towns are not safe to drink
The coal industry is advocating for “clean coal” and claims its reclamation process restores nature back to its form. These practices may not be as great as they claim to be, so legislation was passed that coal can only be mined at a certain distance from streams so it can lessen the amount of pollution in streams. The ruling was repealed.
There was legislation that said that they cannot mind a certain distance from streams and they can no longer contaminate the streams.
The ruling was then repealed
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Some sustainability problems this film draws out is the idea that relying on a natural resource that causes health problems and environmental problems for a large portion of our energy is devastating. In these coal mining countries in Appalachia, the mortality rate is higher than the areas in Appalachia that don’t have coal mining. They have on average, an extra 578 deaths per years. Additionally, the value of the town depreciates because of the coal dust that infiltrates the water system and pollutes the air. We can’t blow up our mountain tops forever, it needs to stop at sometime, whether its because we realize that what we are doing is environmentally devastating or we run out of mountain tops, and thus this way of life that so many people depend on will change because it’s unsustainable.
Lying to ourselves about “clean coal” is not going to solve the issue, and finding a different source of energy will have impacts on these coal mining towns, but these are what sustainability issues are comprised of. Change is necessary, but it will affect many people in the process, so these people need to be taken into consideration when deciding how to carry out the change.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought the most compelling thing the film draws out is the effects of harvesting coal has on the town. Of course there’s health risks because of the coal dust, and the coal dust settling on everything, but the most striking thing was when the ladies were talking about their real-estate, and how it was once valued at $140,000 and now it is only worth $14,000. The depreciation was so drastic that it was shocking that coal could have that much negative effect on a town’s land value.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not fully convinced by the reclamation process the coal companies advocate for. The biodiversity is not preserved in the reclamation process.
Additionally, “clean coal” was also not particularly convincing. The dome the coal company set up to control the coal ash bursted twice. The concept of “clean coal” just simply does not make sense.
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
This film compels me to seek out the history of coal and perhaps the coal miners to see how this resource and its impact as a product and the people who harvest it has changed over time. For instance, was life for coal miners always bad, and how did people become sucked into these kind of coal towns. Like being a butcher nowadays is not considered prestigious, but a few decades ago being a butcher was prestigious and came with a good wage and benefits.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I believe the film best addresses viewers who are aware of the energy crisis, but unaware of why it is difficult to simply implement change. It lets viewers see what is at stake not only on the business end for the coal companies, but also for the coal miners and residents of these villages. I believe this film may change how the viewers view environmental problems, because they will think more about the stakeholders involved.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
There needs to be more research in alternative energies than can replace 50% of our energy consumption. It needs to be as plentiful and cheap as coal in order to take its place.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I believe that the film’s educational value could have been advanced if it offered more information on the feasibility of using alternative energies and perhaps a background on when coal became a major supplier of energy in the U.S. Since the film was biased towards coal, perhaps if it told more of a story of why coal was so prevalent and a great resource, it would have put more context on why it’s such a difficult resource to give up.
Coal Country
Title, director and release year?Title: Coal Country
Director: Mari-Lynn Evans, Phylis Geller
Release Year: 2009
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Coal Country is about a look at coal and the problems and stakeholders involved in the production of coal. Coal currently powers half of the electricity in the US. It’s a resource that is cheap and abundant, and has thus become our main source of energy. There are two ways to mine the coal, underground or surface. In Appalachia, they mine 2 million lbs of coal a year, 1 million is underground coal and 1 million is surface coal. Surface coal is much easier to mine, but to get to the coal, there is immense environmental devastation. Mountain top removal is a common practice involved with surface coal, and it is done by basically blasting the tops of mountain. Mountain top removal contaminates the water, and during reclamation, the trees and organisms that once resided there before mountain top removal are no longer there.
It’s difficult to get rid of the coal industry because the U.S. relies so heavily on it for energy. Additionally, the coal miners are afraid that without coal, they will lose their jobs and won’t be able to feed their families. Coal mining pays relatively well with the average worker making roughly $50,000 per year. In Appalachia, if the citizens aren’t mining coal, the only alternative they see is flipping burgers. However, coal has extremely negative effects on the people who live there. Residents endure health problems, coal dust and grime everywhere, and land depreciation. The water in these towns are not safe to drink
The coal industry is advocating for “clean coal” and claims its reclamation process restores nature back to its form. These practices may not be as great as they claim to be, so legislation was passed that coal can only be mined at a certain distance from streams so it can lessen the amount of pollution in streams. The ruling was repealed.
There was legislation that said that they cannot mind a certain distance from streams and they can no longer contaminate the streams.
The ruling was then repealed
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Some sustainability problems this film draws out is the idea that relying on a natural resource that causes health problems and environmental problems for a large portion of our energy is devastating. In these coal mining countries in Appalachia, the mortality rate is higher than the areas in Appalachia that don’t have coal mining. They have on average, an extra 578 deaths per years. Additionally, the value of the town depreciates because of the coal dust that infiltrates the water system and pollutes the air. We can’t blow up our mountain tops forever, it needs to stop at sometime, whether its because we realize that what we are doing is environmentally devastating or we run out of mountain tops, and thus this way of life that so many people depend on will change because it’s unsustainable.
Lying to ourselves about “clean coal” is not going to solve the issue, and finding a different source of energy will have impacts on these coal mining towns, but these are what sustainability issues are comprised of. Change is necessary, but it will affect many people in the process, so these people need to be taken into consideration when deciding how to carry out the change.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I thought the most compelling thing the film draws out is the effects of harvesting coal has on the town. Of course there’s health risks because of the coal dust, and the coal dust settling on everything, but the most striking thing was when the ladies were talking about their real-estate, and how it was once valued at $140,000 and now it is only worth $14,000. The depreciation was so drastic that it was shocking that coal could have that much negative effect on a town’s land value.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not fully convinced by the reclamation process the coal companies advocate for. The biodiversity is not preserved in the reclamation process.
Additionally, “clean coal” was also not particularly convincing. The dome the coal company set up to control the coal ash bursted twice. The concept of “clean coal” just simply does not make sense.
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
This film compels me to seek out the history of coal and perhaps the coal miners to see how this resource and its impact as a product and the people who harvest it has changed over time. For instance, was life for coal miners always bad, and how did people become sucked into these kind of coal towns. Like being a butcher nowadays is not considered prestigious, but a few decades ago being a butcher was prestigious and came with a good wage and benefits.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I believe the film best addresses viewers who are aware of the energy crisis, but unaware of why it is difficult to simply implement change. It lets viewers see what is at stake not only on the business end for the coal companies, but also for the coal miners and residents of these villages. I believe this film may change how the viewers view environmental problems, because they will think more about the stakeholders involved.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
There needs to be more research in alternative energies than can replace 50% of our energy consumption. It needs to be as plentiful and cheap as coal in order to take its place.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I believe that the film’s educational value could have been advanced if it offered more information on the feasibility of using alternative energies and perhaps a background on when coal became a major supplier of energy in the U.S. Since the film was biased towards coal, perhaps if it told more of a story of why coal was so prevalent and a great resource, it would have put more context on why it’s such a difficult resource to give up.